Just Posted: Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1 sample images

Just posted: Sony RX1 real-world sample images - now updated with high ISO samples. We've had the chance to shoot with a near-production RX1 and have started to put together a samples gallery. These are some of the first full resolution independent samples to be taken with an RX1. We've shot a range of subjects, both in good light and in low light at high ISOs. As usual we've included a range af apertures and focus distances too.

Although the camera is considered close-enough to production standard that Sony has allowed us to shoot with it, the company has stressed it is a pre-production unit and may not be entirely representative of final image quality.

There are 28 images in the samples gallery. Please do not reproduce any of these images on a website or any newsletter / magazine without prior permission (see our copyright page). We make the originals available for private users to download to their own machines for personal examination or printing (in conjunction with this review), we do so in good faith, please don't abuse it.

Unless otherwise noted images taken with no particular settings at full resolution. Because our review images are now hosted on the 'galleries' section of dpreview.com, you can enjoy all of the new galleries functionality when browsing these samples.

Throwing my two cents in, to the chagrin of all. I think the digital photography story is far from over. Companies are still trying to make an ideal imaging tool that people will love forever, that's worth the price in the consumer's mind. The RX1 solves a couple problems, and has a couple problems.

The ideal camera? I would love a box of these cameras, each at a different focal length, with the speed and ease of the RX100, a full frame foveon sensor with Adobe software written to support it, and a blackmagic thunderbolt or USB 3 (I'm not picky) output dumping 4k video. I would take ten around in a pelican case and never touch a sensor again. I could probably live with just six of them.

Anybody noticed how hard it tries to remove blue fringes, probably in internal jpeg conversion? Have a look at the "Blue Ribbon" neon sign in the gallery. Other signs have "proper" (assuming they're expected) color glow, but the blue sign has a darkened and desaturated fringe. Makes me wonder if the lenses have blue chromatic aberration issues so severe that they felt the need to aggressively remove it afterwards.

Night Time Street Shooting High ISOhttp://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2012/10/09/night-time-street-shooting-with-the-sony-rx1-amazing-high-iso-samples/+More thoughts on the RX1http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2012/10/12/sony-week-wrap-up-and-more-thoughts-on-the-sony-rx1/

I doubt very much that the RX1 has an AA filter, same as NEX-7. If you analyze some of the pictures in full size, take the one where people are standing on the footstep of the cable car, you can see huge moire stripes in the camera strap marked EOS Digital. The red edge is a stairway to heaven. If you sharpen the images further, all the round bars that support the roof of the coach will come out in moire stairs. Same you see on the edge of the arm of the girl with the red tank, on left side of the guy with the camera. This proves that no AA filter is used. My NEX-7 has the same issues. I would like to see shots taken from objects with diagonal lines, like the beard of a paintbrush or a broom, hair, cables and wires, I think it would be a surprise. The NEX-7 is a real moire generator in such shots. Look the picture with the Chinese playing music, the strings under his right hand appear in all colors of the rainbow, and the edge of the coat under the seat of the one on right in staired.

All I'm hearing in this thread is blah blah blah.You are nit picking about images that have been softened through an AA filter, colour arranged via the Bayer filter pattern and then aligned in a pixel grid, the same way as the other 99% of digital cameras out there.Then on top of that the whole lot is reassembled by the jpg algorithm, and then flyscreened through a 70-150dpi screen.

And while I agree that the bulk of successful (success being defined on whatever grounds you desire) photography comes from more intrinsic qualities such as a trained eye, experience, and passion, that doesn't mean we should feel guilty or obligated to be negligent of what gear we choose since "they all produce the same image quality, more or less, these days" anyway.

Gear matters. A craftsman might be able to do the job with the wrong or outdated tools, but a craftsman with the right tools can do the job that much better.

Have I exceeded the capability of my current camera? No. But a camera that can actually shoot in low light, something that focuses fast enough where MF isn't practical, customization that makes your workflow easier- these will improve my photography, and even reinvigorate my passion.

Then you might say, does a real photographer need new gear to reinvigorate their passion for photographer?

Well, no, of course not. Sorry, but we're not all purists. Similar to mobile photography and the onslaught of smartphones, maybe not everyone's looking for gear as the only way out of their mediocre photography. Maybe- GASP- it's just a hobby, and the gear goes along with that hobby.

Should you buy every new body that comes out every year, or even less than that? Probably not. Should you hold off on a purchase because you feel you haven't improved intrinsically enough that it's your actual gear that's limiting you and not your own abilities?

Of course not. New gear can = new passion can = new experiences can = improvement. Whatever the case, photography is in the eye of the beholder; to each his own- make it your own, gear and all.

There are probably just as many here who get pleasure from choosing, playing with and showing off their photographic equipment as those who are more interested in the end result. That's perfectly OK of course. Who's to say that the guy who enjoys polishing his car more than driving it is any less worthy than the guy who prefers driving?

Wow, these DP high ISO are amazing. More amazing high ISO samples at http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2012/10/10/live-from-the-sony-event-more-samples-from-rx1-nex-6-and-a99/ and http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2012/10/09/night-time-street-shooting-with-the-sony-rx1-amazing-high-iso-samples/ I really want one now!

all shots from Huff are size reduced, that is why they look that good. In real full size, it would be different anyway. But, honestly, who needs that big sized shots and if, who will ever look them at a distance of one foot?

It would still have to be a very large camera. The average APS-C DSLR is about 3.5 x 6, half the size of the 6 x 7 sensor you mention. After you figure in the electronics and larger lenses that a 6 x 7 sensor requires you will still have a rather large camera compared to a FF.

No, not out of reach, at least technically. But would cost probably 50k+ Just have a look at the digital backs (the latest are actually 'full field' of 645 format). Question is - does anybody need a 6x7 sensor with 100+ Mpix.

I have downed the 12500 iso shots from DPR, the billard balls and those look good, even amazingly good, the same as those from Steve Huff. So, why do those from Imaging Resource all look crappy and with noise reduction artifacts.

Because, Shamael, every reviewer has a bias. The reviewer of this cam at dpr is a bit flippant and cocky -- and it shows.

What I like to do is to integrate several reviews, dpr being one. So far rx1 is a looker but has a long way to go to overcome its price and fixed lens and fixed focus disadvantage [over GF1, say]. One way I'll be able to tell if its lens is "up to speed" is flare rejection. If dpr skips this test then rx1 is but a glorified p&s. Lack of comments on focusing speed is also working against the rx1. The dpr reviewer makes silly comments but his fieldwork is wanting.

I opened those 3 pictures in full size, a minute ago. Do the same and look at them. There is no sharpness nowhere in any of those shots, then, look at the darker parts of the shots, in black and dark brown, the usual NR artifacts show up everywhere. They look great in full size if you look at 5 meters distance, or if you reduce them in size that detail is not visible. For sure, RAW will do a better job, but at the price it costs, I await a better and sharper shot than those ones we have seen until now. The only correct ones I have seen where the ones from Sony.

well, that proves that showing pre production shots can get a lot of customers turn the back to the product before it is on the market for good. Better to show nothing and wait the final. What we see here is not the yolk of the egg anyway.

I have downed shots from many places yet, I have at least a 30 different pictures at many iso rates. But, only Steve Huff has shots that look clean, but none was posted . All, others are without noticeable sharpness and some even looked foggy. What I see until now gives me not the impression that this camera is a wonder-work. I wait till I get more full sized shots, the ones off Steve Huff show no disturbing noise at 25600 iso, those from Imaging resource show quiet uniform noise of medium strength at ISO 1000. So, who has the good camera then of the both? Is Huff's camera better and IR's worth. The shots posted on DPR yesterday where nothing to worry about, compared to those of my NEX-7 that draws better detail, to my opinion, despite being worse in higher ISO. Nothing makes me now think to buy this camera. I am interested in such a gadget, but then it really has to be worth the money I spend.

I've read many comments of how the RX1 is too expensive for what it does. Seriously?

If the first thoughts that enters your mind when you think of the RX1 is that your Canon, Nikon, or Sony full frame camera already offers you the same quality images, and has the ability to use interchangeable lenses for around the same price, then you were never the demographic Sony intended to target with this camera.

The intended user is someone that will instantly identify how special the RX1 is with the amount of quality it packs into such a small package.

The intended demographic of the RX1 are photographers that need a discrete (small, silent), high quality camera/lens combo, such as close candid street photographers, documentary photographers, event photographers, people that want the freedom of using a small high quality single lens, single focal length camera they can take almost anywhere.

News flash. Some people only like to shoot 35mm and don't want to buy a bulky full frame DSLR just to use a high quality 35mm lens. For them this could be the perfect camera.

Geez. I might not even buy this camera. But it's extremely easy for me to appreciate it and understand it's significance and how valuable it will be to photographers that want / need a discrete high quality camera. The RX1 is a first of it's kind.

There are many factors to consider when judging a camera. For some people high ISO performance might matter more than other factors, depending on how they intend to use the camera.

Personally, i'm looking for a discrete camera capable of good (to my standards) ISO in the 3200-6400 range for street photography when available light is not at it's best. This is important to me. Thankfully for me the selection of cameras with good high ISO is growing.

So to me, high ISO matters. It's not the only thing that matters, but it definitely matters for how I would use a camera such as the RX1.

As a now-retired practitioner of vaporware marketing for computer products, my definition is that basically you shoot photos of a empty case, add faux screen shot, and run your ad or put out your brochure in full expectation that the product will be shipping by the time your ad comes out in the magazines. Great when it works: hilarious when it doesn't. Based on this definition, the Sony camera is semi-vaporware -- a few working ones DO exist, with more on the way soon enough.

How is the RX1 even "semi-vaporware"? Pre-production units have reached reviewers just like all previous models of the countless cameras that have actually shipped. Crowbarring a label like "vaporware" on a camera from a major vendor with an actual track record is just silly considering Sony didn't delay production of the RX1 even once as far as we know.

Sure, but the DP2 Merrill don't have the same dynamic range at low iso, often has weird color splotches at ISO 200 and at anything ISO 400 and higher the Sony will start to pull ahead more and more and more.

The D2PM is great if you are shooting at ISO 100/200 in full spectrum daylight. Outside of that... the RX1 can shoot anything else...

the low light shots, particularly the last one with the musician, are really good. That said, for most good available light situations I see no advantage for me in terms of image quality over the K5. And I get to use a more versatile lens.

I like what it is capable of but in no way find it a 'must have' camera at its introduction price. Maybe at $1,199 I would bite, not before.

The sample pictures have to be looked at with the caveat that they are from a pre-production model. They do not compare well with sample pictures from a newer camera less than a third the price, the Nikon D3200. My first criterion in a camera is dynamic range. From the samples it appears that the dynamic range of the RX1 is not as broad as that of the D3200, albeit the D3200 is one of the best in this category. Improvements in the production model will be interesting but of academic interest only. $2800 for a fixed lens camera without an articulated screen is for the 1%. Put a removable lens on it, and articulated screen and a price of $1000 (an APS-C sensor would be fine) then I will emulate the 1% and buy it depending on what dpreview finds for its dynamic range. Or I will not wait and buy a NEX camera now.

It is next to impossible to judge the dynamic range of a modern camera by their jpeg output. The dynamic range of even mediocre sensors is much larger than that afforded by jpeg and what your screen can reproduce.High dynamic range becomes useful only when special processes are applied, such as Nikon ADR or the Sony DRO, and when post-processing processing the raw file

The difference between the IQ of RX1 and X-Pro 1 is remarkable. I am talking about IQ at ISO ca. 6400, based on DPR samples, where RX1 shows a much better performance.X100 is a sad compromise compared to RX1 in IQ at high ISO.Conclusion: RX1 has a relative price advantage to X-Pro 1. Conclusion: APS-C is NOT FF. I hope IQ of APS-Cs can catch up with RX1, but until then this is the high ISO king of non DSLRs.

Like the RX100 the RX1 is all about size and performance.Not just performance. Sony likes to make things small, they havedone that before. E.g. Walkman and small radios.The RX1 remains me about old small 35mm film cameras, somethingI used in the 80's and 90's as my only camera.The RX1 is to expensive for me, and a FF NEX would be more usefull.So I wait... but maybe a used RX1 one day if I can get it cheap :)

Dear dpreview, why oh why aren't you shooting a fast lens the way it is meant to shoot, like, wide open @ f2? So many f4.0 nighttime shots. Yes, we all know it performs better if stopped down, thats why I had high hopes to see how it performs in low light wide open. Would've also kept down the ISO2.500 to1.600 but maybe thats just how I see it.

It's like having a noctilux but prefering to bump up the ISO to shoot at 2.8.And yes we all know that it's a pre-production camera ....

FF f2.0 35mm at say 10 feet from the focus point is all of about 3 feet worth of DOF. Maybe you want that compositionally, maybe you don't. It's nice to have that option, but stopping down to f4.0 when light permis does drastically increase your DOF from 3 feet to 6.5 feet.

I am not so sure about that. Remember, the X100 was the first of Fujifilm's high IQ larger (APS-C or bigger) sensor cameras. What do you do for an encore in that case? You build an interchangeable lens camera off the same model.

Sony doesn't need to produce a full frame interchangeable lens compact camera to compete with Fujifilm and it seems unlikely they will pattern one off the RX1 even if they did decide to produce a full frame NEX -- and therefore a new line of full frame NEX lenses in the process because honestly, who wants a LEAx adapter with Alpha lenses just to shoot full frame in a compact camera?

It appears the excellence in this camera is its high ISO performance. While the street photographs are good, there are many compact enthusiast models less expensive that produce as good or better images.$2800 is a bunch for marginally useful high ISO photographs at 35mm.The full frame doesn't appear particularly useful for some reason. I think with digitally reproduced images we are accustomed to over saturated photos.

Nice sensor, great concept but mediocre lens, at least that's what I see in these photos. High ISO performance seems very good by my standards but the street photograpahy I thought this camera was built for lacked the 'wow' I was expecting at the price and spec

I guess the odd white balance in some of the images will get corrected in the production firmware, but the softness in some of the ISO100 daylight photos and the surpsingly obvious distortion must come from the lens - a bit disappointing for a 35mm Zeiss prime lens

Agree. The lens suffers from noticeable distortion, high field curvature. Great example of what a fixed lens should not looks like. Sorry sony, but this thing should not cost $2800: the body should cost much lower than $2000 — it's not a DSLR with their mechanical crap within. I think the real cost is about $1200-1300. The lens is cheap and is not that great. I guess its cost is about $300-$400. So, $1700 for this body. Not $2800.

Lovely - but I still feel that the price is way way too high. Come on Sony - we all know it's a winner - so why are you doing a Leica and pricing it out of the reach of all but the few? Or is this all part of your plan to build the Sony brand within the camera market?

If so, I really hope that Fuji take you on - sure they won't make the same mistake with the price point....

No if they were doing a Leica this would cost over $10,000. $2800 is well within reason for a full frame sensor and a top-shelf Zeiss 35/2. Unfortunately for most people, the fact that the sensor and lens are inseparable means the sum is worth less than the parts.

You will probably get your wish in the rumored Fuji X200, which should have the X-Trans sensor.

A FF DSLR with a 35/2 lens is not comparable to the RX1. That's like saying the RX100 should be compared to a D3200 with a kit lens based on cost and equivalent aperture. Their footprints are drastically different.

@JackMThis lens is not top-shelf. May be it is sharp enough, but distortion and field curvature are too noticeable. Much more noticeable than expected for good fixed lens. The body should be pretty cheap compared to DSLRs. I guess it is overpriced at about $1k.

Well, with depth of field they certainly would notice. f2.0 on a FF is very short DOF. Beyond that I kind of agree with you though. There are a lot of pictures I take with compacts that look indistinguishable from bigger cameras. A lot of the value in a camera doesn't show up in the picture it's very true. You may not need all the detail or depth of field a setup is capable of for a given shot and focusing speed doesn't often affect the end result of a still shot ;)

After looking at some cameras using the Sony 16mp APS-C sensor high ISO shots, this camera does not seem all that impressive. The hi ISO shots are soft.

If you don't need the slight improvement of resolution and the stronger bokeh at the given (fixed) focal length of this camera, I'd look for a camera with an APS-C sensor. Get a NEX with a fixed lens for 1/4 the price.

I will say that Sony's 24mp APS-C sensor is disappointing in the high ISO department compared to the 16mp version and this FF sensor.

Before you gag on the price, consider that to get similar performance, bare minimum you would need to spend $2100 on a Nikon D600 and $1620 for the 35/1.4. Forget the cheap 35/2, it can't keep up with this Zeiss. And then you have a big heavy bulky camera that you don't want to bring everywhere, and which puts people off when you point it at them in candid situations. And add $100 for a bag.

The 35mm f/2.0 is actually very good on the D800. But if you want something even better then get the Voigtländer 40mm f/2.0 which is excellent, but not an AF lens. Think the Voigtländer is something like $500.

I suppose you could say this Sony is actually a tiny D600 and all you are giving up is interchangable lenses but it still seems like an odd comparison. Unless the only lens you ever use is a 35mm, then it makes sense.

I was more impressed with the daylight shots. The bottles and Big 4" are ISO 400. Not a big deal for the sensor. The model shots and other higher ISO images were something of a let down. The Sony 16mp APS-C sensor gives you pretty much the same high ISO performance at much less cost.

At £2599 I would expect a totally brilliant camera! I mean what a price! I wonder how many Sony will sell? I wouldn't want to pay this price for any camera. But, I suppose, if you really want to make Sony shareholders rich, then go ahead. Do you really, really need it? or are you just a gadget geek?

This Sony camera seems to be a depature from their traditional high quality Point and shoot cameras. Normally Sony cameras always had a rather soft contrast presentation in it's images . This camera gives very punchy JPG's . Detail is very good . Even if the price is a bit high I like what I see .